If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
"Jeff Durham" wrote in message ... If you are interested in pictures at a family outing, stick with a point and shoot digital camera. If you are interested in a wide range of photography (landscapes, fireworks, portraits, closeups of insects, flowers, ...), get an SLR. Are DSLRs really better for landscapes? I thought the low end models had problems getting wide angle? Steve |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
Roland Karlsson writes:
(Jed Savage) wrote in om: My question is really what benefits do the dSLR cameras have over non-SLR? There are three advantages [snip] 2. SLR's has a very attractive view finder - WYSIWG. Opinions vary; I think the viewfinder of an SLR is *less* WYSIWYG than the live LCD preview that non-SLR digitals normally have. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Changing lenses. I can't get anything *close* to the wide end of what I use routinely in a fixed-lens model. Also more responsive -- less delay after pushing the button, faster autofocus. Also higher quality pixels -- even at the same pixel count, the pictures are *better*; especially at high ISO. Of course it's a lot more money, and a lot more stuff to haul around. That might end up discouraging you from shooting photos, which would not be a win! Oh well... my wife has a (film) SLR, me a compact Olympus 5050. Guess which camera gets used more often Concerning the high ISO, many people use DSLRs with lenses which start at F4 or for other reasons are forced to shoot at small apertures (to get sufficient DOF for instance). With small apertures you are basically forced to use high ISOs, while with the camera I'm using I can shoot at F1.8 at low ISOs and still have a lot to depth of field. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/ Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
Bob wrote:
Much to my surprise, I also found that the D70 camera made vastly superior pictures as well! And both cameras cost me about the same price - I now consider the Minolta an over-priced POS. Concerning the supposed superiority of a DLSR compared to a P&S have a look at these photos, both taken in the Nubian Museum in Aswan (Egypt), both at the same time (after sunset at 6 something pm): Olympus 5050: http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/.../img.php?pic=7 1/13s f/1.8 at 8.2mm (=40mm) iso125 Pentax *ist D: http://www.pbase.com/image/25743311 1/20s f/4.0 at 38.0mm iso1600 Note that the DSLR user had to go all the way up to ISO 1600 to get 1/20 s - and his (handheld) shot is still blurred - while I took my shot at 1/13s and ISO 125. That's probably because the 5050 starts at F1.8, while the lens of the Pentax DSLR the photographer was using probably started at F4.0. Now, a 5050 at ISO 125 has less noise than a DSLR at ISO 1600. I can assure you that the full size image of the 5050 is pretty noiseless and very sharp. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/ Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
Steve Almond wrote: "Jeff Durham" wrote in message ... If you are interested in pictures at a family outing, stick with a point and shoot digital camera. If you are interested in a wide range of photography (landscapes, fireworks, portraits, closeups of insects, flowers, ...), get an SLR. Are DSLRs really better for landscapes? I thought the low end models had problems getting wide angle? They should be. More megapixels is particularly good for landscapes and most current models are 6 mp or more. They also can go wider than most point and shoot cameras. For example, the Canon 300D kt lens will go to 28 mm or so (35 mm equivalent) while my two P&S are 37 mm and 38 mm respectively (there are some that go wider). And you can -- at some expense! -- buy other lenses to go even wider for landscapes. Phil |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Roland Karlsson writes: (Jed Savage) wrote in .com: My question is really what benefits do the dSLR cameras have over non-SLR? There are three advantages [snip] 2. SLR's has a very attractive view finder - WYSIWG. Opinions vary; I think the viewfinder of an SLR is *less* WYSIWYG than the live LCD preview that non-SLR digitals normally have. Definitely not the case in bright sunlight :-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
Unless you have the Minolta A2. . . .
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message ... David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Roland Karlsson writes: (Jed Savage) wrote in .com: My question is really what benefits do the dSLR cameras have over non-SLR? There are three advantages [snip] 2. SLR's has a very attractive view finder - WYSIWG. Opinions vary; I think the viewfinder of an SLR is *less* WYSIWYG than the live LCD preview that non-SLR digitals normally have. Definitely not the case in bright sunlight :-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
Phil Wheeler wrote:
They also can go wider than most point and shoot cameras. For example, the Canon 300D kt lens will go to 28 mm or so (35 mm equivalent) while my two P&S are 37 mm and 38 mm respectively (there are some that go wider). And you can -- at some expense! -- buy other lenses to go even wider for landscapes. There are several P&S which go down to 28mm and even less if you attach a wide angle converter lens. With the DSLRs instead there are problems if the lens is very "wide", because the light needs to hit the pixels of the sensor perpendicularly or not at a too great angle from 90°. In addition to this the large DOF of P&S cameras makes them especially suitable for landscapes. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/ Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:18:05 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote: Bob wrote: Much to my surprise, I also found that the D70 camera made vastly superior pictures as well! And both cameras cost me about the same price - I now consider the Minolta an over-priced POS. Concerning the supposed superiority of a DLSR compared to a P&S have a look at these photos, both taken in the Nubian Museum in Aswan (Egypt), both at the same time (after sunset at 6 something pm): Neither of those photos is original, neither are they impressive! A single modified snapshot between 2 specific cameras doesn't really say much... All I can tell you is the experience I've had with MY cameras, and I can definitely say that my D70 is superior to my Minolta 7i and also to my old Kodak 280 and also to an Olympus I had that I forgot the model... If I take the 2 cameras I still have and take identical pictures at the same time, there is a big difference between, and if you think about it - there should not be. If you want, I can post pics taken of the same things with both cams and you can see for yourself, at Alt.binaries.photos.original. Now if your P&S cam can take better pics then great!! I never said that ALL DSLRs were better then ALL others, just that my 2 were like that! Olympus 5050: http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/.../img.php?pic=7 1/13s f/1.8 at 8.2mm (=40mm) iso125 Pentax *ist D: http://www.pbase.com/image/25743311 1/20s f/4.0 at 38.0mm iso1600 Perhaps a test at identical F numbers for identical DOF would be more appropriate. Note that the DSLR user had to go all the way up to ISO 1600 to get 1/20 s - and his (handheld) shot is still blurred - while I took my shot at 1/13s and ISO 125. You shouldn't be taking hand held shots! That doesn't compare the cameras, it compares nerves... Now I can go buy a Nikkor vibration reducing lens and get far far better results. That's probably because the 5050 starts at F1.8, while the lens of the Pentax DSLR the photographer was using probably started at F4.0. It's less blurred because the focal length is shorter. What happens if I go out and buy an F1.2 lens?? Hmm?? Your argument kind of goes out the window... Now, a 5050 at ISO 125 has less noise than a DSLR at ISO 1600. I can assure you that the full size image of the 5050 is pretty noiseless and very sharp. The noise in your camera at the same ISO of a larger sensor DSLR would be far higher. If I put a 1.8 lens on my camera it will be quieter than yours. I think you ran an unfair comparison! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|